Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
376
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
377
378
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
379
380
381
382
383
384
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
385
386
MENDOZA, J.:
The fraternal contract should not be signed in blood,
celebrated with pain, marred by injuries, and perpetrated
through suffering. That is the essence of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995.
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to
reverse and set aside the April 26, 2013 Decision1 and the
October 8, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05046, which affirmed the February
23, 2011 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36,
Calamba City (RTC). The RTC found petitioners Dandy L.
Dungo (Dungo) and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr. (Sibal), guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section
4 of R.A. No. 8049, and sentenced them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Facts
On February 1, 2006, the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Calamba, Laguna, filed the Information4 against the
petitioners before the RTC, the accusatory portion of which
reads:
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
387
On February 7, 2006, upon motion, the RTC admitted
the Amended Information5 which reads:
On February 7, 2006, Dungo filed a motion to quash for
lack of probable cause,6 but it was denied by the trial court
because the ground cited therein was not provided by law
and jurisprudence. When arraigned, the petitioners
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.7 Thereafter, trial
ensued.
_______________
5 Id., at p. 49.
6 Id., at pp. 41-44.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
7 Id., at p. 58.
388
_______________
8 Id., at p. 301.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
389
_______________
390
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
391
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
393
_______________
394
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
20 Rollo, p. 64.
399
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
21 Id., at p. 87.
400
Petitioners Dungo and Sibal argue that the amended
information charged them as they “did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault and use
personal violence upon one Marlon Villanueva y Mejilla.”23
Yet, both the RTC and the CA found them guilty of
violating R.A. No. 8049 because they “[i]nduced the victim
to be present”24 during the initiation rites. The crime of
hazing by inducement does not necessarily include the
criminal charge of hazing by actual participation. Thus,
they cannot be convicted of a crime not stated or
necessarily included in the information. By reason of the
foregoing, the petitioners contend that their constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against them has been violated.
In its Comment,25 filed on May 23, 2014, the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) asserted that Dungo and Sibal
were charged in the amended information with the proper
offense and convicted for such. The phrases “planned
initiation” and “in conspiracy with more or less twenty
members and officers” in the amended information
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
22 Id., at p. 15.
23 Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
24 Rollo, p. 86.
25 Id., at pp. 125-146.
26 Id., at p. 137.
27 Id., at pp. 153-163.
401
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
28 Id., at p. 155.
29 Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 112 (9th ed., 2009).
30 Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182,
April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 468, 477.
31 Rule 124, Sec. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme
Court.—
(a) Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death
should be imposed, the court shall render judgment but refrain from
making an entry of judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate its
entire record to the Supreme Court for review.
(b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser penalty for offenses
committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence
that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the
402
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
penalty of death is imposed, and the accused appeals, the appeal shall
be included in the case certified for review to, the Supreme Court.
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment
imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme
Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
32 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA
687.
33 Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
34 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Ley Construction and
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 185590, December 3, 2014, 743 SCRA
618.
35 Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
403
_______________
went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are
without citation of specific evidence on which the conclusions are based;
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When
the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; see David
v. Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 194785, July
11, 2012, 676 SCRA 367, 373-374.
404
Substantive Matter
In our contemporary society, hazing has been a
nightmare of parents who send their children to college or
university. News of deaths and horrible beatings primarily
among college students due to hazing injuries continue to
haunt us. Horrid images of eggplant-like buttocks and
thighs and pounded arms and shoulders of young men are
depicted as a fervent warning to those who dare undergo
the hazing rites. The meaningless death of these promising
students, and the agony, cries and ordeal of their families,
resonate through the very core of our beings. But no matter
how modern and sophisticated our society becomes, these
barbaric acts of initiation of fraternities, sororities and
other organizations continue to thrive, even within the elite
grounds of the academe.
The history and phenomenon of hazing had been
thoroughly discussed in the recent case of Villareal v.
People.38 It is believed that the fraternity system and its
accompanying culture of hazing were transported by the
Americans to the Philippines in the late 19th century.39
Thus, a study of the laws and jurisprudence of the United
States (US) on hazing can enlighten the current
predicament of violent initiations in fraternities, sororities
and other organizations.
United States Laws and Jurisprudence on Hazing
There are different definitions of hazing, depending on
the laws of the states.40 In the case of People v. Lenti,41 the
defen-
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
405
_______________
44 Id., at p. 39.
45 Hank Nuwer & Christopher Bollinger, Chapter 14-Hazing, Violence
Goes to College: The Authoritative Guide to Prevention and Intervention, p.
207 (2009).
46 Tamara Saunders & Chelsee Bente, Hazing Adjudication Guide-For
College and Universities, p. 13 (2013).
47 Id.
406
_______________
48 Id.
49 Supra note 43 at p. 30.
50 F.S. § 1006.63; HB 193.
51 NY PEN. LAW § 120.16-120.17.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
407
_______________
408
_______________
409
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
410
SENATOR GUINGONA:
Most of these acts, if not all, are already punished under the
Revised Penal Code.
SENATOR LINA:
That is correct, Mr. President.
SENATOR GUINGONA:
If hazing is done at present and it results in death, the charge
would be murder or homicide.
SENATOR LINA:
That is correct, Mr. President.
_______________
Phil. 591; 546 SCRA 595 (2008) for more examples of mala in se crimes
in special laws. July 4, 2008.
67 Art. 220 of the Revised Penal Code; see Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No.
192330, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 637.
68 Teves v. COMELEC, 604 Phil. 717, 729; 587 SCRA 1, 13 (2009),
citing Dela Torre v. COMELEC, 327 Phil. 1144, 1150-1151; 258 SCRA 483,
487 (1996).
411
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
SENATOR GUINGONA:
If it does not result in death, it may be frustrated homicide or
serious physical injuries.
SENATOR LINA:
That is correct, Mr. President.
SENATOR GUINGONA:
Or, if the person who commits sexual abuse does so it can be
penalized under rape or acts of lasciviousness.
SENATOR LINA:
That is correct, Mr. President.
SENATOR GUINGONA:
So, what is the rationale for making a new offense under this
definition of the crime of hazing?
SENATOR LINA:
To discourage persons or group of persons either composing a
sorority, fraternity or any association from making this
requirement of initiation that has already resulted in these
specific acts or results, Mr. President.
That is the main rationale. We want to send a strong signal
across the land that no group or association can require the act of
physical initiation before a person can become a member without
being held criminally liable.
x x x x x x x x x
SENATOR GUINGONA:
Yes, but what would be the rationale for that imposition?
Because the distinguished Sponsor has said that he is not
punishing a mere organization, he is not seeking the punishment
of an initiation into a club or organization, he is seeking the
punishment of certain acts that resulted in death, et cetera as a
result of hazing which are already covered crimes.
The penalty is increased in one, because we would like to
discourage hazing, abusive hazing, but it may be a legitimate
defense for invoking two or
412
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
413
intent, but just because there was hazing, I am afraid that it will
disturb the basic concepts of the Revised Penal Code, Mr.
President.
SENATOR LINA:
Mr. President, the act of hazing, precisely, is being
criminalized because in the context of what is happening in the
sororities and fraternities, when they conduct hazing, no one will
admit that their intention is to maim or to kill. So, we are already
criminalizing the fact of inflicting physical pain. Mr. President, it
is a criminal act and we want it stopped, deterred, discouraged.
If that occurs, under this law, there is no necessity to
prove that the masters intended to kill or the masters
intended to maim. What is important is the result of the
act of hazing. Otherwise, the masters or those who inflict the
414
physical pain can easily escape responsibility and say, “We did
not have the intention to kill. This is part of our initiation rites.
This is normal. We do not have any intention to kill or maim.”
This is the lusot, Mr. President. They might as well have been
charged therefore with the ordinary crime of homicide,
mutilation, et cetera, where the prosecution will have a difficulty
proving the elements if they are separate offenses.
x x x x x x x x x
SENATOR LINA: x x x
I am very happy that the distinguished Minority Leader
brought out the idea of intent or whether it is mala in se or mala
prohibita. There can be a radical amendment if that is the point
that he wants to go to.
If we agree on the concept, then, maybe, we can just
make this a special law on hazing. We will not include this
anymore under the Revised Penal Code. That is a possibility.
I will not foreclose that suggestion, Mr. President.69
[Emphases supplied]
Having in mind the potential conflict between the
proposed law and the core principle of mala in se adhered
to under the RPC, the Congress did not simply enact an
amendment thereto. Instead, it created a special law on
hazing, founded upon the principle of mala prohibita.70 In
Vedana v. Valencia,71 the Court noted that in our nation’s
very recent history, the people had spoken, through the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
415
From the said definition of hazing, it is apparent that
there must be an initiation rite or practice performed by
the fraternities, sororities or organization. The law,
however, did not limit the definition of these groups to
those formed within academic colleges and universities.74
In fact, the second para-
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
416
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
417
Section 3 of R.A. No. 8049 imposes an obligation to the
head of the school or organization or their representatives
that they must assign at least two (2) representatives, as
the case may be, to be present during these valid
initiations. The duty of such representative, is to see to it
that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a
recruit, neophyte or applicant.
Noticeably, the law does not provide a penalty or
sanction to fraternities, sororities or organizations that fail
to comply with the notice requirements of Section 2. Also,
the school and organization administrators do not have a
clear liability for noncompliance with Section 3.
Any person who commits the crime of hazing shall be
liable in accordance with Section 4 of the law, which
provides different classes of persons who are held liable as
principals and accomplices.
The first class of principals would be the actual
participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing
or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury
or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the
fraternity, sorority or organization who actually
participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be
liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any
person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of actual
participation, unless he prevented the commission of the
acts punishable herein.76
The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the
extent of injury inflicted to the victim.77 The penalties
appear
_______________
418
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
419
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
the injury sustained shall require medical assistance for the same
period.
8. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2
months and one day to 6 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim
sustained physical injuries which do not prevent him from engaging in his
habitual activity or work nor require medical attendance.
78 Arts. 249, 263, 265 and 266 of the Revised Penal Code.
79 Sec. 4. x x x
The maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in any of the
following instances:
(a) when the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat,
intimidation or deceit on the person of the recruit who refuses to join;
(b) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents to join
but upon learning that hazing will be committed on his person, is
prevented from quitting;
(c) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing
is prevented from reporting the unlawful act to his parents or guardians,
to the proper school authorities, or to the police authorities, through force,
violence, threat or intimidation;
(d) when the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution;
or
(e) when the victim is below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the
hazing.
80 Par. 1(8), Section 4, R.A. No. 8049.
420
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
421
_______________
422
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
SENATOR LINA:
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT.
Is there any objection to the committee amendment? (Silence.)
The Chair hears none; the same is approved.88
[Emphasis supplied]
Further, the law acknowledges that the offended party
in the crime of hazing can seek different courses of action.
It provides that the responsible officials of the school or of
the police, military or citizen’s army training organization,
may impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on
the person or the persons charged under this provision
even before their conviction.89 Necessarily, the offended
party can file either administrative, civil, or criminal
actions against the offenders.90
_______________
423
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
424
It is evident that the Information need not use the exact
language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense. The test is
whether it enables a person of common understanding to
know the charge against him, and the court to render
judgment properly.92
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
92 People v. Puig, 585 Phil. 555, 562; 563 SCRA 564, 571 (2008), citing
People v. Lab-eo, 424 Phil. 482, 495; 373 SCRA 461, 473 (2002).
425
_______________
426
SENATOR GUINGONA:
Mr. President, assuming there was a group that initiated and a
person died. The charge is murder. My question is: Under this bill
if it becomes a law, would the prosecution have to prove
conspiracy or not anymore?
SENATOR LINA:
Mr. President, if the person is present during hazing. x x x
SENATOR GUINGONA:
The persons are present. First, would the prosecution have to
prove conspiracy? Second, would the prosecution have to prove
intent to kill or riot?
SENATOR LINA:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
427
SENATOR LINA:
That is why I said that it should not be murder. It should be
hazing, Mr. President.98
The Court does not categorically agree that, under R.A.
No. 8049, the prosecution need not prove conspiracy.
Jurisprudence dictates that conspiracy must be
established, not by conjectures, but by positive and
conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere
companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime
does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge,
acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active
participation in the commission of the crime with a view to
the furtherance of the common design and purpose.99
R.A. No. 8049, nevertheless, presents a novel provision
that introduces a disputable presumption of actual
participation; and which modifies the concept of conspiracy.
Section 4, paragraph 6 thereof provides that the presence
of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
participation as principal, unless he prevented the
commission of the punishable acts. This provision is unique
because a disputable presumption arises from the mere
presence of the offender during the hazing, which can be
rebutted by proving that the accused took steps to prevent
the commission of the hazing.
The petitioners attempted to attack the constitutionality
of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049 before the CA, hut did not
succeed. “[A] finding of prima facie evidence x x x does not
shatter the presumptive innocence the accused enjoys
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
428
MR. DIMACULANGAN
Q: And how many persons from this group did you see again?
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
100 Agullo v. Sandiganbayan, 414 Phil. 86, 101; 361 SCRA 556, 570
(2001).
101 Sec. 12, R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
102 Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. 22.
103 Sec. 5, P.D. No. 1612.
429
WITNESS
A: Three (3), sir.
Q: Where did they come from, did they come out from the
resort? Where did this 3 people or this group of people coming
from?
A: Inside the resort, sir.
Q: And around what time was this?
A: Around 9:00, sir.
Q: And what did they do if any if they came out of the resort?
A: They went to my store, sir.
x x x x
Q: Did you have any other visitors to your store that night?
x x x x
A: “Meron po.”
Q: Who were these visitors?
A: I don’t know their names but I recognize their faces, sir.
Q: If I show you pictures of these people, will you be able to
identify them before this Court.
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: Mrs. Ignacio, I am showing you this picture of persons
marked as Exhibit “L” in the Pre-Trial, can you please look over
this document carefully and see if any of the persons whom you
said visited your store is here?
x x x x
A: “Siya rin po.”
COURT:
Make it of record that the witness pinpointed to the first
picture appearing on the left picture on the first row.
x x x x
430
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
ATTY. PAMAOS:
For the record, your Honor, we manifest that the picture and
the name pointed by the witness has been previously marked as
Exhibit “L-3” and previously admitted by the defense as referring
to Gregorio Sibal, Jr., accused in this case...104
Ignacio, also positively identified Dungo as among the
guests of Villa Novaliches Resort on the night of the
hazing, to wit:
COURT:
Q: x x x Now, when you say other people you could identify who
are not in the pictures then how would you know that these
people are indeed those people you could identify?
WITNESS:
A: “Iyon pong ... di ba po nagkuwento ako na dumating sila
tapos nag shake hands at saka iyong nagyakapan po...”
Q: And what will be the significance of the alleged embrace and
shake hands for you to say that you could identify those people?
A: “Hindi po. Noong dumating po sila nasa isang jeep, meron
pong lalaki doon sa may tabi ng driver bumaba siya tapos po
noong bumaba siya tapos iyong mga kasamahan nya sa likod
nagbaba-an din, iyon po nagbati-an po sila.”
Q: And from these greeting, how could you identify these
people?
A: “Ngayon ko lang po napag masdan ang taong iyon, hindi ko
po alam na akusado po sa kabila iyon.”
Q: And who was that person?
A: “Siya po, iyon po.”
Q: Who are you pointing to?
_______________
431
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
The testimony of Ignacio was direct and
straightforward. Her testimony was given great weight
because she was a disinterested and credible witness. The
prosecution indubitably established the presence of Dungo
and Sibal during the hazing. Such gave rise to the prima
facie evidence of their actual participation in the hazing of
Villanueva. They were given an opportunity to rebut and
overcome the prima facie evidence of the prosecution by
proving that they prevented the commission of the hazing,
yet they failed to do so.
Because of the uncontroverted prima facie evidence
against the petitioners, it was shown that they performed
an overt act in the furtherance of the criminal design of
hazing. Not only did they induce the victim to attend the
hazing activity, the petitioners also actually participated in
it based on the prima facie evidence. These acts are
sufficient to establish their roles in the conspiracy of
hazing.
Hence, generally, mere presence at the scene of the
crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.106
Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the
offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the
prima facie evidence due to their presence during the
hazing, unless they prevented the commission of the acts
therein.
_______________
432
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
107 People v. Capuno, 635 Phil. 226, 236; 640 SCRA 233, 242-243
(2011).
108 People v. Javier, 659 Phil. 653, 657; 546 SCRA 328, 332 (2008).
433
_______________
109 People v. Sace, 631 Phil. 335, 343; 617 SCRA 336, 345 (2010).
110 Stephen Sweet, Understanding Fraternity Hazing, THE HAZING
READER 2 (2004).
111 Supra note 43 at p. 14.
112 Sec. 4, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
113 People v. Sevilleno, 469 Phil. 209, 220; 425 SCRA 247, 255-256
(2004).
434
latter already reported to him, and asked him why he did not
report to him when he was just at the tambayan. Dungo then
continuously punched the victim on his arm. This went on for five
minutes. Marlon just kept quiet with his head bowed down.
Fifteen minutes later, the men left going towards the Entomology
wing.
5. The deceased Marlon Villanueva was last seen alive by Joey
Atienza at 7:00 in the evening of 13 January 2006, from whom he
borrowed the shoes he wore at the initiation right [sic]. Marlon
told Joey that it was his “finals” night.
6. On January 13, 2006 at around 8:30 to 9:00 o’clock in the
evening, Susan Ignacio saw more than twenty (20) persons arrive
at the Villa Novaliches Resort onboard a jeepney. She estimated
the ages of these persons to be between 20 to 30 years old.
435
436
437
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
Petitioners Dungo and Sibal, on the other hand,
presented the defense of denial and alibi. These defenses,
however, must fail. Time and time again, this Court has
ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses,
because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.115 As
properly held by the RTC, these defenses cannot prevail
over the positive and unequivocal identification of the
petitioners by prosecution witnesses Sunga and Ignacio.
The testimonies of the defense witnesses also lacked
credibility and reliability. The corroboration of defense
witness Rivera was suspect because she was the girlfriend
of Dungo, and it was only logical and emotional that she
would stand by the man she loved and cared for. The
testimonies of their fellow fraternity brothers, likewise, do
not hold much weight because they had so much at stake in
the outcome of the case. Stated differently, the petitioners
did not present credible and disinterested witnesses to
substantiate their defenses of denial and alibi.
After a careful review of the records, the Court agrees
with the CA and the RTC that the circumstantial evidence
presented by the prosecution was overwhelming enough to
establish the guilt of the petitioners beyond a reasonable
doubt.
_______________
438
_______________
440
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/62
10/16/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 761
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f21326ec09b46aa42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/62